Pigeon <jah.pigeon@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 11:41:19AM -0600, DvB wrote:
> > csj@mindgate.net writes:
> >
> > > On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 22:36:45 +0000,
> > > Pigeon wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > Personally, I think that the space programme in its current
> > > > state of development is frequently trying to run before it can
> > > > walk, and consumes money which would be better spent on famine
> > > > relief.
> > >
> > > That's one way to look at it. Agreed, famine victims should have
> > > priority. But a country which already spends a hundred billion
> > > dollars for its defense ought to spend a few more tens of billion
> > > dollars for a space program that could save the planet when the
> > > next Big One comes along
> >
> > Wanna "save the planet"? Why not spend some money on finding a way to
> > reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? I know it would be exciting to be
> > able to experience escaping to Mars with a gas mask over your face, but
> > some of us like adventure a little less than that.
>
> I can think of a few off the top of my head:
<snip several ways>
I was thinking more along the lines of improving access to alternative
transportation (I.e. rail, bus, bicycle, walking) which can be done
_now_ with _current technology_ and would have the added benefit of
saving individuals money since people who don't wish to deal with the
nightmare of driving and/or the enormous expense and hassle of owning a
car can make a one time expenditure of $100 for a bike, plus about
$40/month (the approximate cost of a monthly pass for most decent
transit systems in the US) and be quite happy, healthy and
wealthy. Meanwhile, those who do like spending time sitting by
themselves in a car (can't imagine why) could still spend their money on
them if they want.
Of course, this isn't necessarily an easy thing to do in many places
where most of the growth has happened according to current zoning
standards (like the southern US).